May 26th Update - Feedback Topic

Posted by torrone on 5/28/2015 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by joshkvt on 5/28/2015 11:47:00 AM (view original):
Clear, consistently enforced private rules are always backed by admin.
Not in my experience.
Always are in my experience.   What rule have you found that they won't enforce?
5/28/2015 12:49 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/28/2015 12:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by torrone on 5/28/2015 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by joshkvt on 5/28/2015 11:47:00 AM (view original):
Clear, consistently enforced private rules are always backed by admin.
Not in my experience.
Always are in my experience.   What rule have you found that they won't enforce?
In the past it always seemed they were reluctant to remove anyone for tanking, regardless of the evidence. They opted for collecting the $$. We were recently able to remove a guy after several owners contacted admin expressing their displeasure. So maybe this has changed and if so, it's a change for the better.
5/28/2015 1:14 PM
Posted by torrone on 5/28/2015 1:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/28/2015 12:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by torrone on 5/28/2015 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by joshkvt on 5/28/2015 11:47:00 AM (view original):
Clear, consistently enforced private rules are always backed by admin.
Not in my experience.
Always are in my experience.   What rule have you found that they won't enforce?
In the past it always seemed they were reluctant to remove anyone for tanking, regardless of the evidence. They opted for collecting the $$. We were recently able to remove a guy after several owners contacted admin expressing their displeasure. So maybe this has changed and if so, it's a change for the better.
"Tanking" can have many different interpretations.  Did you have an explicitly worded rule in your "Private World Rules" page that was specifically being violated?  Or was this more of a "I know tanking when I see it" kind of thing?
5/28/2015 1:21 PM
Reluctant? Absolutely. Unwilling, absolutely not. Evidence of tanking is nebulous, if a specific rule hasn't been broken (unless the owner is dumb enough to post in world chat "I'm tanking and you can't do anything about it"). Last case I dealt with they suggested sanctions instead of removal. I responded that our vets committe considered and rejected that option, they removed him. Asking support to remove someone because "he's tanking" won't work. Asking them to remove someone because "he missed the MWR" will.
5/28/2015 1:22 PM
If there are no specific rules, you're not giving them much to work with.    Had an owner drop 30+ straight in a public world.   Several signs of tanking.   I knew, when I sent the first ticket, that they weren't going to remove him.   The gist of the response(several exchanges before this):

5/18/2015 11:28 AM Customer Support
Hi Mike,

We agree and have sent a site mail to tmholcomb.

Please let us know if he hasn't changed anything by the end of the week, or keep us updated with any other information you feel we should know.

Thanks!
5/28/2015 1:25 PM
FWIW, he won 9 of his last 25 after they contacted him.    Ended up tied for 3rd best record(maybe he gets 4th pick) instead of 1st.   So there's that.
5/28/2015 1:39 PM
An aspect of this which, I think, we haven't discussed (and if I missed it, sorry)...

Owners who don't spend on scouting will run an increased risk of overdrafting players, based on cheap-money projections.  When lesser players get drafted, better players move down in the draft order.

We have discussed whether there should be more "draft busts" or "Mike Trouts" coming out of the selection process.  This is a way to make those things happen, without the owner picking a player who's been arbitrarily assigned some faulty ratings by the sim.  If it happens this way, it'll be because owners didn't invest enough in their drafts... their own damn fault.

Which seems to me as it should be.

5/28/2015 2:08 PM
It was discussed in the other thread for a bit.   I don't think you're going to get Albert Pujols in the 13th round(unless DITR become much bigger in the game) but you might get Mike Trout at pick 25.       And it will be far more likely that Tim Beckham goes 1st and Buster Posey goes 5th. 
5/28/2015 2:15 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/28/2015 2:15:00 PM (view original):
It was discussed in the other thread for a bit.   I don't think you're going to get Albert Pujols in the 13th round(unless DITR become much bigger in the game) but you might get Mike Trout at pick 25.       And it will be far more likely that Tim Beckham goes 1st and Buster Posey goes 5th. 
And, just like real life, it will depend on which team has the best scouting. Which is how it should be.
5/28/2015 2:17 PM
Well, I think a lot of it depends on luck in MLB.    You can scout all day and decide Josh Hamilton was the best player.    Then you get what you get.   I'm guessing MLB didn't have a make-up category back then. 
5/28/2015 2:20 PM
So today Riley got our DiTR's. Once again, everything is a bust. Guys have gone from low A guys to potentially AA or AAA guys but there are still very few that will make the majors. A few relievers, one potential catcher and a defensive SS. This seriously needs some tweaking as this is the same nonesense we had before. I don't mind only getting one DiTR rather then five but I feel like even the lower reaches should be a AAA or AAAA.

This tweak is not quite there yet.
5/29/2015 8:32 AM
I guess I have to ask.   How much do you have in ADV?   Because, if you're at 0, I don't think you can make that call yet.   I got three in Coop.   Two, depending on development, will be borderline BL players.   The third might be a beast.    We have to wait and see on development if ADV is 0.
5/29/2015 8:37 AM
I'm not going to be quite that harsh on the Riley DiTRs.

The bump factor appears to me to be increased... I'd guess by 15 to 20 percent.

The starting point for DiTR players is still low.  My three players are two I picked off minor league waivers, and one tryout camp refugee.

Three quarters of the league's DiTRs are age 22 or younger, so they have time to approach their new projections.

Many of the pitchers got serious DUR/STA bumps in particular.

To say the tweak is not quite there yet, it depends on what you want.  There are no Mike Piazzas.  But I don't personally think that there should be.

5/29/2015 8:47 AM
Posted by damag on 5/29/2015 8:47:00 AM (view original):
I'm not going to be quite that harsh on the Riley DiTRs.

The bump factor appears to me to be increased... I'd guess by 15 to 20 percent.

The starting point for DiTR players is still low.  My three players are two I picked off minor league waivers, and one tryout camp refugee.

Three quarters of the league's DiTRs are age 22 or younger, so they have time to approach their new projections.

Many of the pitchers got serious DUR/STA bumps in particular.

To say the tweak is not quite there yet, it depends on what you want.  There are no Mike Piazzas.  But I don't personally think that there should be.

Not only that, but  we're only 4 days into the update and someone who has seen ONE DITR is deeming "we aren't there yet"?

How can you possibly make a judgement on where we are yet?  Get back to me in 2 more seasons...

5/29/2015 9:05 AM (edited)
So back to advanced scouting for a bit. Maybe the best way to handle it is to just eliminate it from the game. It's a nice idea. It has a place in real life. It sounds like it should be relevant but the fact that so many people run 0 may really be a sign that it isn't needed in the game at all.

  If you make it pertain to all projections it surely does become more important but it then makes other scouting budgets less important so wouldn't that  just shift where people use 0.

  If you make it pertain to all current ratings does it only affect the current ratings on other peoples teams? How will trades even be possible to evaluate?

  Maybe  it is time for WIS to say. Yeah this part of the game really doesn't work and our users have overwhelming told us by their usage that it is irrelevant.
5/29/2015 8:58 AM
◂ Prev 1...16|17|18|19|20...26 Next ▸
May 26th Update - Feedback Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.